House Approves Flag-Burning Amendment

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050622/ap_on_go_co/flag_burning_10
By Laurie Kellman / Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The House on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.

By a 286-130 vote — eight more than needed — House members approved the amendment after a debate over whether such a ban would uphold or run afoul of the Constitution's free-speech protections.

Approval of two-thirds of the lawmakers present was required to send the bill on to the Senate, where activists on both sides say it stands the best chance of passage in years. If the amendment is approved in that chamber by a two-thirds vote, it would then move to the states for ratification.

Supporters said the measure reflected patriotism that deepened after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and they accused detractors of being out of touch with public sentiment.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the (World) Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

The measure was designed to overturn a 1989 decision by the Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 that flag burning was a protected free-speech right. That ruling threw out a 1968 federal statute and flag-protection laws in 48 states. The law was a response to anti-Vietnam war protesters setting fire to the American flag at their demonstrations.

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." For the language to be added to the Constitution, it must be approved not only by two-thirds of each chamber but also by 38 states within seven years.

Each time the proposed amendment has come to the House floor, it has reached the required two-thirds majority. But the measure has always died in the Senate, falling short of the 67 votes needed. The last time the Senate took up the amendment was in 2000, when it failed 63-37.

But last year's elections gave Republicans a four-seat pickup in the Senate, and now proponents and critics alike say the amendment stands within a vote or two of reaching the two-thirds requirement in that chamber.

By most counts, 65 current senators have voted for or said they intend to support the amendment, two shy of the crucial tally. More than a quarter of current senators were not members of that chamber during the last vote.

The Senate is expected to consider the measure after the July 4th holiday.

_

The amendment is H.J. Res 10.

yeah but most people burn the stars and stripes outside of the USA so............

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_co/politics_of_the_flag;_ylt=AlcytqjnU3uxiCUoGND4YK1I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

WASHINGTON - Symbols are everything in politics. They can get you elected — or defeated. That's why Democrats fear getting singed by a proposed flag-burning ban, forced into a vote that Republicans will cast as a test of patriotism.

The GOP-led House voted 286-130 on a measure Wednesday that would give Congress authority to ban desecration of a U.S. flag. Its prospects aren't good in the Senate, but Republicans could still get what they want — an issue that divides or even conquers Democrats in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Democratic Party leaders generally don't want to tamper with free-speech rights in the Constitution, but they were split on whether to bow to political pressure. After all, the flag means more than ever after the 2001 terrorist attacks, and Republicans are not shy about evoking Sept. 11 in political fights.

They did it in the 2002 congressional elections, gaining seats, and again in 2004, when terrorism remained the defining issue of congressional races and President Bush's re-election bid. Republicans returned to Sept. 11 in the flag-burning debate.

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center," said Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif. "Ask them and they will tell you: 'Pass this amendment.'"

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., whose district includes the site of the former World Trade Center, accused Republicans of exploiting the attacks.

"If the flag needs protection at all," he said, "it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Still, some Democrats, mostly moderates, said the power of that symbol shouldn't be underestimated.

"I can't imagine when it gets down to it that any Democrat would vote against the ban," Democratic strategist Ray Strother said. "Something strange is happening in this country. More than ever, people seem to be looking for symbols. What does this flag amendment really mean? Doesn't matter; it's a symbol for something else. People, particularly the conservative movement, are trying to leave a trail of signs that have larger implications."

He pointed to the Georgia Senate race in 2002 when Sen. Max Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in a grenade explosion in Vietnam, lost his re-election bid after Republicans ran ads with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that blamed him for thwarting Bush's plans for a Homeland Security Department. Strother said the ad was an assault on Cleland's patriotism, a sample of what Democrats can expect if they don't rush to the defense of the flag.

"Democrats ought not put themselves in a position of fighting symbolic fights that are meaningless," said Democratic strategist Chris Lehane of San Francisco. Instead, he urged Democrats to find wedge issues that can be used against Republicans, such as passing a congressional resolution demanding to know why bin Laden is still free.

But many Democrats say it's cowardly not to fight the ban, and are convinced they won't be punished by voters for doing so. "Voters simply don't believe Democrats are hostile to the American flag," Democratic strategist Jim Jordan said.

Still, he conceded the issue "makes Democrats' knees wobbly," and said some politicians are in a tough spot — "surrounded by staff and consultants and supporters who are probably more worried about this than they ought to be."

According to a 2004 poll by the Freedom Forum, the most recent available, 53 percent of Americans believed the Constitution should not be amended to make flag-burning illegal, while 45 percent supported a ban.

An informal survey by The Associated Press found 35 senators on record as opposing the amendment — one more than the number needed to defeat it if all 100 senators vote.

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.

However, a law like the one proposed by the senator would likely be challenged in courts because Congress has no clear right to outlaw flag burning. That is why supporters of the ban want to add a one-line amendment to the Constitution that says, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

Whether it passes now, later or never, the proposed amendment complicates the lives of chastened Democrats. Says Strother: "We now know the power of these symbols."

***But Rep. Jerrold Nadler D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."***

that pretty much says it all.

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

Oh my god!!! For once I actually agree with Hilary Clinton! Her statement is the absolute best way to settle this matter.

it just seems like republicans want to alter the constitution any way, any how.

Will they attempt to alter the term limits for Presidents? Next on CSPAN...

Don't quite see the problem with flag-burning myself.

-AC

besides, if desecrating the american flag is a crime...

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Don't quite see the problem with flag-burning myself.

-AC

I see alot wrong with burning the American flag. I just don't think there should be a constitutional amendment banning the practice.

Personally, never seen anything wrong with burning cloth. That's me though.

But I agree, don't see why people should be punished for doing so. It's the land of freedom after all.

-AC

Originally posted by PVS
***But Rep. Jerrold Nadler D-N.Y., said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."***

that pretty much says it all.

Yup.

The flag is a piece of cloth. Most likely the flag that you have in front of your house wasn't even made in the US. The flag in itself means nothing. It stands for freedom, though, and banning burning it is going against what it stands for. Ridiculous. Can we say "hypocrites"?

I like this amendment. No more burning of the flags, sounds good to me. Thank you for the good news this morning PVS

all i know is they dont need to alter the constitution to create federal law.
i smell ulterior motive.

Why on earth would this be approved?jm

Jackie, if you'd read the article you'd see that it's not saying what you're thinking it's saying (from the subject title).

Also, every time I read "At home online!" the thing that pops into my head is something along with lines of:

Live! One night only! JM!

you forgot a thing, botankus 😛

I bet she can't read it...isn't PVS on her ignore list......

Well anyways, this is strange....I don't think in any other country would they even thingk aboot something like that......

Now think aboot it A Sign of Freedom can't be burned by the "Free" People anymore.....isn'T thatg a contradiction in itself.

to tell you the truth i never had the ugre to burn a flag....but now.....

Well, I guess actually it would probably achieve exactly that....people that have the urge to burn a flag will even feel more like doing it